Slashdot Mirror
J. K. Rowling Wins $6,750 In Infringement Case
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "J. K. Rowling didn't make enough money on Harry Potter, so she had to make sure that the 'Harry Potter Lexicon' was shut down. After a trial in Manhattan in Warner Bros. v. RDR Books, she won, getting the judge to agree with her (and her friends at Warner Bros. Entertainment) that the 'Lexicon' did not qualify for fair use protection. In a 68-page decision (PDF) the judge concluded that the Lexicon did a little too much 'verbatim copying,' competed with Ms. Rowling's planned encyclopedia, and might compete with her exploitation of songs and poems from the Harry Potter books, although she never made any such claim in presenting her evidence. The judge awarded her $6,750 and granted her an injunction that would prevent the 'Lexicon' from seeing the light of day." Groklaw has an exhaustive discussion of the judgement.
I was not aware that society's subjective judgment of whether someone has made "enough" money from one's intellectual property was a factor in copyright law. Either there's a copyright infringement or there isn't. Rowling's wealth and success are irrelevant.
As evidenced by the thousands of Harry Potter supplement books that are already on the market, all this judge has done is slapped down a lazy, plagiarizing author.
Why the bad attitude in the submission post?
Someone was trying to release a commercial product whose premise was stealing content from an established work.
If they didn't get hit hard on copyright infringement, they'd get hit hard on trademark infringement, and rightly so.
Like it nor not, J. K. Rowling created the series, and decided to turn it into a commercial enterprise. It's well within her moral and legal rights to make sure a bunch of idiots don't cling to her coattails trying to milk dollars from a popular franchise that they have no legitimate claim to.
It's been a long time.
Oh please.
The judge granted summary judgement on the flimsiest of grounds - a reference work for a multiple-volume work of fiction, by definition, will be "a dry reference."
Most reference books contain unique descriptions and commentary above and beyond the information presented in the source material.
And if you've ever looked at the Lexicon website, you know that it does precisely that. The judge fucked up on this point of law, because the Lexicon writer was a little guy and Rowling carries around an army of lawyers.
It's a sad day for the legal system and I hope this gets overturned on appeal - of course, by that point the damage is done.
"Please, Ms. Rowling, I'm so tired and bleeding from both ends..."
"Is J.K. gonna have to choke a bitch? Get me my money!"
Whoosh! That went over my head.
Rowling, I believe is a billionaire. This isn't about money; it's about control. I'm guessing here, but I get the impression that these books mean much more to her than as something that got her out of poverty and made her one of the richest women in the World. Like many creative types, their creation is almost like a one of their children. And I'd be pretty pissed too if someone copied things from me and published them as their own work.
"Mr. Judge, you suck too! Go back to law school and actually learn something about fair use, derivative works, and copyright law!"
Sigh. RTFJ - he DID cite caselaw and Supreme Court rulings regarding fair use, and in his "judgement" (you know, where the title comes from), this work failed to qualify. Something like 80% of the book was copied verbatim from the HP books - that's not a lexicon, it's a Reader's Digest condensed version.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Oh please. The judge granted summary judgement on the flimsiest of grounds - a reference work for a multiple-volume work of fiction, by definition, will be "a dry reference." Most reference books contain unique descriptions and commentary above and beyond the information presented in the source material. And if you've ever looked at the Lexicon website, you know that it does precisely that. The judge fucked up on this point of law, because the Lexicon writer was a little guy and Rowling carries around an army of lawyers. It's a sad day for the legal system and I hope this gets overturned on appeal - of course, by that point the damage is done.
Thank you, Moryath. It's always a pleasure to hear from someone who actually knows something about copyright law.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
As stated above, copyright law has nothing to do with whether someone is successful. The fact is that Rowling had given them permission to have their verbatim copied lexicon as long as it was only free on the web. As soon as they tried to change it into a published work the whole thing changed. She made them absolutely clear from the beginning that no permission was extended to copying her work directly and selling it. So, this is one of very few of these cases where I would side with the super rich, mostly because that's fair in this case but also because it's the actual creator of the work who owns the copyright. This is what copyright is for, protect the CREATOR of stuff from freeloaders so that original creators have an incentive to keep on creating. It is usually abused by corporations who have half enslaved a bunch of creators (music business), but in this case the rights reside with the author. And as the judge states, works like this lexicon are usually protected, except it just copies too much directly, therefore it is not protected. Fair cop
You hinged your argument on the wrong part of that sentence. "Dry reference" is not illegal, nor is it the judge's words. "Reorganized", however, IS illegal when we are speaking about copyrighted works. That is what the judge found against.
Hardly. The lexicon was read aloud in court, along with the source material it pulled from. The book was a clear case of plagiarism to the court. The publisher can feel free to appeal the decision, but I doubt they'll find much sympathy from an appeals judge.
The crux of your defense appears to be that a website previously existed that Rowling was happy with. Yet one has to be clear on one aspect here: There is a large gulf between publishing large pieces of someone's work for a no-cost reference and publishing someone else's work for profit. The defendant may have had a website that Rowling was happy with and thus not inclined to take legal action against (effectively giving approval for the use), but the book should have either added significantly more value over the source material OR have sought approval from the Rowling before attempting to go to press.
FWIW, PJ does an excellent job in reaching the same conclusion in her Groklaw post. Kudos to kdawson for adding that useful link to balance out an otherwise defamatory post.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
NYCL, are you trying to lose all respect? Moryath's post was way off base based on the evidence presented in this case. If you believe otherwise, you need to present a reasonable argument to the contrary. Not simply cherry pick those who agree with you and pat them on the back. Rather than building up that individual, you are dragging your own reputation through the mud.
If you want more support on your side, then I suggest you treat Slashdot as you would a courtroom: Argue your case!
You never know. If you actually have a case, you might gain more support. If you don't, it will become clear very quickly. Either way you'll have a much better chance at gaining respect for your beliefs than by making defamatory statements like, "J. K. Rowling didn't make enough money on Harry Potter, so she had to make sure that the 'Harry Potter Lexicon' was shut down." As a lawyer, you should know better.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Like many creative types, their creation is almost like a one of their children.
And just like with children, if you attempt to enact perfect control, you will stifle and destroy that which you love.
Ultimately, every parent has to learn to let their child grown up, and find their own way in the world (the alternative produces hopelessly needy and/or bitter children). Similarly, every artist has to learn to let their art be distributed, and be built-upon by others (the alternative produces hopelessly sterile art and/or a restriction on cultural freedom).
(To take the analogy further: I'm not advocating a complete lack of parenting; nor am I advocating that artists retain no control over their art. But in both cases, they must eventually "let go.")
Hardly. The lexicon was read aloud in court, along with the source material it pulled from. The book was a clear case of plagiarism to the court.
You mean selected snippets of the Lexicon were read in order to trick the judge into believing that that was all there was. A clear logical fallacy, but common tactic in cases like this.
The crux of your defense appears to be that a website previously existed that Rowling was happy with. Yet one has to be clear on one aspect here: There is a large gulf between publishing large pieces of someone's work for a no-cost reference and publishing someone else's work for profit.
Which is funny, considering the HP Lexicon website itself had advertising revenue associated with it.
And of course, there's the fact that the research was obviously independent, given that Rowling started attacking them for "getting things wrong":
In summary: the judge was dazzled by Rowling's star power and way too much lawyering, and should never be let near a copyright case again because he's proven himself utterly incompetent in the area.
You mean selected snippets of the Lexicon were read in order to trick the judge into believing that that was all there was. A clear logical fallacy, but common tactic in cases like this.
Did the defense not have a chance to demonstrate the unique descriptions and commentary above and beyond the information presented in the source material?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
actually read it, please. It's linked there. The judge relied on VERY fair-use unfriendly Second Circuit case law to come to his conclusion.
While the judge does admit that the author does not have control of these types of works, and the judge states that some types of works should be encouraged, the actual analysis of what would constitute transformation really does make the likelihood of such works being published less likely.
The judge left a pretty darned high threshold for what is considered "substantial" copying, and mentioned things like "fictional facts" and "paraphrasing" used to determine infringement.
In any rate, the ruling is vague enough in its analysis that I'm confident it will act as a bar towards publishing similar works, even when verbatim copying does not occur. I expect publishers and potential authors will be more reluctant to pursue such works in the future.
Of which the defense simply allowed without showing the substantive quantity of original text following the lifted text? Please. If any lawyer is that incompetent, he deserves to lose. Otherwise, for what purpose does legal defense exist?
I will reiterate: It is up to the author to decide how their work is used. Given that there was no charge to the readers of the site, and that web advertising rarely does more than defray operating costs, I can see how she would have given it a nod as an excellent fan reference.
That still conveys ZERO legal right to publish a work of plagiarism for profit. Only Rowling can make that decision. Which (if you read the decision) she attempted to convey in correspondence with the author and publisher. Correspondence that they chose to disregard.
You appear to think that one cannot plagiarize and yet be guilty of poor research at the same time. Allow me to disabuse you of that notion.
Let's say we have original text that looks like this: "Harry Potter's wand is a 14 inch long, magical instrument that is capable of some very powerful spells indeed! Yet Harry knows that its power is strong and that he should only use it only in dire situations."
Now let's create text that both plagiarizes and adds unsubstantiated claims to the text: "Harry Potter's wand is a 14 inch long, magical piece of wood that is capable of powerful hexes. Harry is a pacifist and thus feels that the power is strong and that he should only use it only in dire situations."
With those very simple changes, we have managed to achieve "getting it wrong" without adding sufficient research to be considered either for fair use or as an original work.
See, that is opinion. The facts presented in the case disagree with your opinion. Until someone demonstrates facts that are contrary to the judge's findings, then I'm afraid you have no leg to stand on.
--
As a personal note, I'd like to add that I have no stake in wanting Rowling to win or lose this case. I have been avoiding the Harry Potter series since its inception and am entirely turned off by its premise. My only interest in this situation is the matter of law and justice. The decision, while an obviously difficult one for the judge, appears to be correct according to everything I have seen about the case to date. Until someone proves otherwise, NewYorkCountryLawyer's post is reactionary and defamatory.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
"I hope that he can edit the lexicon some more and try to publish it again, this time without including the reference works that Rowling's put out and with more of his own words than hers."
Of course, he could have done that in the first place and avoided the whole mess - just like the OTHER authors of Potter oriented books did.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
I agree. But the Lexicon, unlike most similar publications, failed to build upon the original works. WB/Rowling/Scholastic had no issue with the MuggleNet book, for instance, as it contained primarily analysis rather than just reprinting what Rowling had already written in slightly different wording.
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
Otherwise I'm sure she would have sued for millions, not a paltry 6,750. I'm fairly certain this is about her keeping control over her creation.
Yes there is a difference between civil and criminal law, but to speak to AC's point, in neither case does "being a bitch" count as a legal criterion.
"Those who believe in telekinetics, raise my hand" - Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
The courts AWARDED the minimum statutory balance, but that was the judge's decision.
The Battlestar Wiki and Wookiepedia are technically derivative works. We're pretty much relying on fair use for the legality of the wikis, and those arguments were weakened by this case somewhat.
Which is more than the author of the lexicon did, by an amount roughly equal to "written in slightly different wording".
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
No, but you have to defend it to keep everyone else from disregarding it as well. If you don't litigate the first time, your legal fees will be through the roof with all of the other "me toos" out there looking for a piece when you DO decide to 'defend' it.
http://www.tomandemily.com
For not having read it you sure seem to know an awful lot about it and the authors intentions
>I've never understood these claims about Narnia being religious. I guess the last book in the series is a bit, but most of it is just a story.
I love the Narnia stories, and almost everything else C. S. Lewis wrote, and I think they're a valuable addition to English literature.
But I think you'd be hard-pressed to defend Aslan being tied to a stone and killed in place of someone else's sin, then coming back to life a couple days later and bringing loads of other people back to life for an enormous final battle to overthrow Evil, as 'just a story.' I knew quite well what Lewis was writing about when I read The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe when I was seven years old.
The others -- Dawn Treader, Horse and His Boy, in particular -- are pretty easy to write off as just stories. But LWW and The Last Battle, which *were* the first and last books before idiots decided to start reordering the stories in their storyline order, seem to me to be pretty transparent in their re-presentation of Christianity. I don't think that's a bad thing, mind you: the vision Lewis had of how Christianity should be is a good, noble ideal. But it's never struck me or anyone I know as being particularly cryptic in its presentation.
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
an author protecting her solely-created IP from some little fanboy trying to profit off her work and his "doesn't get out much" Potter addiction hardly warrants this kind of posting
I disagree. The vitality of the "fair use" defense is of extreme importance to the balance in copyright law. A highly publicized, and dead-wrong, decision like this casts a chill over our freedom of expression.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
No sir. The travesty is not that people have been modded up and down for their opinions. Such is the normal course of things. The travesty is that Mr. Beckerman's lapse in grace and judgment was posted by the editors. Had they passed over his submission, no one would have known of his misstep and his reputation would have remained untarnished.
I am utterly saddened by what this story has done to a man that I deeply respected. This story will cause his future judgments to be called into question, which will significantly reduce his ability to communicate news to the Slashdot readership. A blow from which I can only hope he will be able to recover.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Your arguments all rest on the fact that Harry Potter is wildly successful. You say 'enough to go around' and 'a popular work'. That's basis for you to deny Rowling equal protection under the law.
Shall I assume, then, that a starving first time author does have the protection of the law to prevent a clearly derivative 'lexicon' of their work?
That may be; however, Rowling herself was a frequent visitor and vocal supporter of the Harry Potter Lexicon website for years before this suit. She's also gained a lot of street cred in various fan/fanfic communities for her support of sites like the Lexicon.
Rowling's right to defend what is legally perceived as her intellectual property isn't the issue that is getting her fanbase up in arms. It's her rapid flip-flop from "Hey, it's great that you're doing this and I have no problem with your website" to "I'm suing you for copyright infringement." It appears unlikely that Rowling is doing this because she personally feels her creative "child" is negatively affected by the existence of the Lexicon.
Nor do I think her motivation is financial--it's obvious she doesn't need the money. But as someone else pointed out, Warner Brothers' name is also on this lawsuit. I'm going to venture out on a limb here and guess that whatever agreements were signed in blood before the Harry Potter series became a merchandising gold mine have way more to do with this lawsuit than Rowling's personal opinion on the fair use of her creative works.
I'd say this is a great example of what happens when copyright passes from the control of the creator to a distributor.
Absolutley correct: being a bitch is not a legal criteron.
However, it's a key criterion in forming my opinion of whether or not she is a bitch.
The court case is done. Public opinion of the world's richest woman is open for change.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Here's the thing- for non-legal practitioners, the decision has implications beyond the text of the legal findings. This decision is specific to the facts of this case. That doesn't matter as much to some as it does to attorneys.
Are the legal findings sufficient to cause additional risk in publishing such a work?
Are publishers going to want to use resources to publish a book that has a stronger possibility of a lawsuit, whatever the merits of this particular case?
The judge's analysis of transformation- in my opinion, not friendly to fair use- is enough to make a reference publication of a fictional work a greater risk than it was before the decision. I do think the judge wanted to do the right thing, but I don't think the judge did.
And I'd be pretty pissed too if someone copied things from me and published them as their own work.
I would side more with Rowling if the lexicon weren't so clearly a work of love from the author, a work that could arguably be fair use (as mentioned in groklaw, there's a good possibility that if he'd just stuck to the main books, he would have won), and if she hadn't come out and said that she'd used the website as a reference guide.
I haven't read the lexicon so I don't know how much of it really is copying, but she's been a bitch about the situation while he's been nice and tried to do the right thing. He tried to work with her, she seemed hopeful for a while and then pulled all support. That was a pretty dick move on her part. I hope that he can edit the lexicon some more and try to publish it again, this time without including the reference works that Rowling's put out and with more of his own words than hers.
I'm pretty sure she even admitted that she used this same freaking lexicon in researching her own convoluted backstory.
Lets put this another way. If this story wasn't about a BILLIONARE suing the operator of
The Harry Potter Lexicon
and instead suing
Harry Potter Wiki
Well, i think there would be a bit more /. rage going around, eh?
I find it interesting that you seem more incensed about this than about, say, RIAA legal tactics (which I could tell from your other posts you feel strongly about). Does the fact that there are other derivative works that were published for profit and not sued by J.K.Rowling not soften your opinion at all? She wasn't out for the money, either, although she got these 6750 as an award.
I am curious what is it that makes you so mad about this case. I am not convinced of this, but even assuming that the judge and J.K.Rowling were in fact wrong, all that happened is that she prevented a publication of one Harry Potter reference book (not the first) that she felt went too far in copying her work.
Actually, there is no way to give up your copyright, either. At least, no easy way. That's why public domain licenses exist. You still own the copyright, but license it with no strings attached.
This is simply not true (at least in the U.S.). Please do not spread this misinformation.
First, there is an easy way to renounce your copyright and place a work in the public domain. You simply declare that that work is in the public domain; e.g., by a statement saying "This work is in the public domain."
But don't just take my word for it:
It is well settled that rights gained under the Copyright Act may be abandoned. But abandonment of a right must be manifested by some overt act indicating an intention to abandon that right. See Hampton v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 279 F.2d 100, 104 (9th Cir. 1960). Micro-Star v. Formgen Inc., 154 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 1998).
FYI, that is from Judge Kozinski's decision, not just some random judge.
The reason people claim it's impossible to do this is because they are afraid that someone, having placed something in the public domain, might come back and claim copyright to it, and that a court might uphold it. That may very well be an issue, but it certainly doesn't prevent you from renouncing your copyright - it simply means that some people might still refrain from using it.
Secondly, there's no such thing as a "public domain license." The very idea of the public domain means that the work is free for anyone to use in any way, without any license. You're obviously referring to copyright licenses like Creative Commons, which seek to provide an expansive, non-exclusive license along with a work. In these cases, you do still retain copyright, but this is not the same thing as the public domain.
For more information, visit http://cr.yp.to/publicdomain.html.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
J. K. Rowling didn't make enough money on Harry Potter, so she had to make sure that the 'Harry Potter Lexicon' was shut down.
Since when does the amount of money made on any work have even the least bit to do with whether or not someone can plagiarize such work? Infringement is infringement no matter how much the creator has made. This judgment was just, fair and well deserved.
I am Jack's smirking revenge.